Mr Editor,

Please allow me space to respond to Jeggan Grey-Johnson’s article of 9^th February 2010 which was published in your well established medium under the heading; ‘‘Agenda 2011; The Opposition Leaders Must Do the Right Thing.’’

While I agree that the opposition should get it right this time around, I do not however agree that Agenda 2011 is the right basis for this. This is an ill-conceived theory that was propounded by a disingenuous political ideologue on the basis of two premises namely; that the NADD alliance did not work because it was unable to gather significant amount of votes in the 2006 presidential elections, and also that the UDP led alliance did not work because it had registered a drop in votes from their 2001 electoral standing. While I agree with the former, I beg to differ with the latter. That premise is not only flawed, it is also fraught with the propounder's very own personal prejudice against a possible UDP led alliance in 2011.

Although it is true that the UDP registered a drop in votes from their 2001 standing, this however cannot be attributed to the type of alliance [party led alliance] they adopted in 2006. As was rightly indicated in the UDP- UK rejoinder of 1^st February 2010, UDP’s drop in votes resulted from two things; their own lack of adequate preparation thanks to their prior membership of NADD, and the unprecedented low voter turnout [58.58%] that was witnessed in 2006 which when compared to the 2001 voter turn-out [89.71%], indicates a drop of 31.13% and this is notwithstanding the fact that the national voter register had been updated with 219,630 new voters in 2006. Going by the results of 2006 presidential election, it doesn’t appear that these voters had voted for a different party rather than the UDP. They just didn’t vote. Otherwise, why is it that NADD barely crossed over the 5% threshold?

Some might argue that the low voter turn-out was a direct result of opposition disunity.  While this may be true, it does not however lend any credence to Agenda 2011 as there is no evidence which suggests that this was a specifically directed protest against the UDP led alliance. Even if the connection between opposition disunity and the voter turn-out is validly made and I am not saying it is not, it would appear that the situation would still have been the same irrespective of whatever type of alliance any party might have chosen to adopt, be it party led alliance, the so-called umbrella party or indeed a grand coalition. Therefore, it is not the nature of party led alliance that is the issue here but the factors that inhibited the realisation of its full potentials in 2006. That is what folks with genuine interest in opposition unity want to talk about, not some kind of superficial political theories that are specifically invented to circumvent the rules of conventional politics in furtherance of a particular individual’s selfish agenda. A grand coalition as spelled-out in Agenda 2011 is pretty much akin to the NADD coalition - the only difference being the name - and would be vitiated with the same problems that eventually led to the breakdown of NADD. Hence, it is not an option. It is just a mere but crude academic exercise. Therefore and instead of asking the leaders to commit the same mistake and somehow expect a different result or levelling false accusations against the leadership of the United Democratic Party – accusing them of paying a lip service to the call for unity -, Jeggan should have been bold enough to ask Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS Party to put their personal pride, egos and idealism aside and immediately embrace a UDP led alliance without any obnoxious precondition whatsoever. That is the only thing that has never happened before and it is about time history is made.

The UDP has proven itself over and over of being the dominant force in Gambia’s opposition politics. Any future alliance/coalition of all opposition parties must therefore be built around them. This is a sacred principle of any democratic political dispensation and no amount of spinning and hypocrisy will be allowed to circumvent it. The earlier the fringe parties recognise this, the better for our chances of forging a unified alliance of all opposition parties against the ruling APRC in 2011. This is not about helping someone to become an elite as Halifa would say. It is about adhering to the rules of conventional politics; coalitions are usually led by the biggest party in the group.

Jeggan’s suggestion of a primary election as a mechanism for selecting a candidate for a possible coalition of all opposition parties is both misplaced and untenable. Primaries are normally an internal party contest where individuals contest for the leadership/candidature of a given party in a forthcoming general election. Coalitions of independent sovereign political parties don’t contest primaries to determine who their leader should be. That is normally determined by the results of the preceding general election. This is what we have seen in Israel, Germany and Italy just to name a few. There is no reason why this should not apply to the opposition in The Gambia.

In 2006, 127,473 electorates voted for the opposition combined. Out of this, 81% voted for the UDP candidate and 19% for NADD – the so-called PDOIS and PPP-OJ coalition – This exhibits a clear expressed will of the Gambian people which is valid for five years – it expires only after the 2011 presidential election – and have therefore effectively rendered the whole idea of a primary utterly obsolete as a legitimate candidate can easily be determined from these statistics.

Jeggan’s claim that PPP-OJ and PDOIS coalition (NADD) registered an increase of 100% in their 2006 score is really laughable. I couldn’t stop asking myself whether he is in his trees. This shows that our dear friend is detached from both the facts and the political reality on the ground. PPP and PDOIS never contested a general election together as an alliance prior to the 2006 presidential election. Hence, there is no prior statistics that could be used to determine whether they have registered an increase or a decrease in 2006. What is however crystal clear is that this alliance or whatever they chose to call it, is not fit for purpose for it is an extremely weak one. Out of forty-eight constituencies, they had 1,000 or more votes in only five constituencies. In thirty-three constituencies, they had less than 1000 votes and in ten constituencies less than 100 votes. I see no potential in such a diabolical electoral performance.

As for who leads the UDP, that is a matter for the general membership and if Jeggan doesn’t like the current leader, he should join the party before its upcoming congress and fight from within. Otherwise, he should, frankly speaking, shut up.

 I hope he will do more research next time before going to the press.

SS Daffeh

Essex, UK.